One Video Card, 12 Monitors

Jamie found a story that might make your jaw drop if you happen to have some need to put 12 video cards in your machine. Although if that isn't enough, you can always install two of these. I don't think I'm kidding.

Comments

Can You Install Three?

[eldavojohn]

I know that motherboards only support two but I seem to recall a story of someone who might be interested in that.

Also, in the article, they call this behemoth "Powercolor innovation." I'd rather we called it "Powercolor scaling" unless they actually tackled the problem in some way other than slapping to cards together into one.

Re:Can You Install Three?

[dave420]

Like this one? It supports 4-way CrossFire (or SLI), and has enough PCIe x16 slots to cope with three of these cards.

Multi-seat Computing

[timeOday]

I think a 4 or 6 core CPU could support 12 users in many cases. I could see building a computer lab at a school this way to minimize administrative burden. But it's too bad multi-seat linux doesn't work better. I have struggled with it on and off over the years, and it just doesn't seem to have critical mass of interest to gain real distro support.

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[vlm]

Because of that you'd save little, if any, money over cheap systems acting as thin clients

Good detailed technical analysis, but I can get an equally valid argument by working a different angle.

Unless you're doing something real weird/wrong, the cheapest part of a computer lab is the hard drive, video card, chassis, etc. Zero that out, and you've got something very unusual, rare, and complicated, yet remains at 99% of the total cost, that being mostly salary and indirect costs (health insurance, pension, etc) and stuff like HVAC, electric bill, fractional capital expense of the building, cost of electrical and LAN wiring and related hardware... If you want to save a whopping 1% of the total cost of ownership, the very superficial answer is just install 99 computers instead of 100.

If your 24 room school costs $12M to build, which seems believable, then your empty room cost $500K. You can pull your hair out to "save" $2500 worth of hard drives and $1250 worth of chassis/power supplies, but that's a false economy. And you'll never be able to piecewise upgrade.

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[hairyfeet]

The problem with Linux saving money in schools is this: The guys that really REALLY know Linux, the real gurus that could wrap their head around what you are suggesting and set up and maintain a good working solution, would end up costing your more $$$$$ than the solution would be worth. Because I have known a few gurus in my day, and they get paid the big bucks. The chump change and belly button lint that the average public schools offer IT wouldn't even get those guys to show up for an interview.

Like it or not, a GPO locked down Windows really isn't hard to admin. Hell with the easy GUI of WinServer I could probably teach my oldest boy in less than a month everything he would need to manage a group of desktops with GPO. With Linux you better know your way around bash, have good CLI-foo, be good at problem solving and trawling forums for when you get "update foo broke my hardware" and generally be a hell of a lot more knowledgeable on the in and outs of your chosen distro to really get the most out of it. And the guys that can do that with ease are already booked to the eyes and simply don't have the long hours for low pay that school IT guys have to deal with.

So in the end you would be penny wise and pound foolish because any money you saved on desktops would be gone and more on the Linux guru to maintain it. But on the plus side I'm sure the Linux gurus here LIKE getting paid a hell of a lot more than the Windows guys, so I'm sure it all evens out ;-)

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[SnarfQuest]

Back in the day, we had 30+ users on a PDP-11/70, with good response. Now you have a machine 3000X faster, and have problems supporting a single user. Aren't advances in technology amazing?

Re:Multi-seat Computing

[kenh]

THat is an amazingly odd way to try and squeeze more simultaneous users out of one box. FIrst you take a four or six core CPU, add an ungodly-expensive video card, and then (I assume) a couple dozen USB ports for keyboards/mice THEN you get to write the glue software to make it all work together.

Exactly how would this be more useful than a dozen Atom-based systems at $200/each (plus monitors/keyboards/mice, common requirement for either your solution or mine)? Assuming the appropriate software exists (and I don't think it does), if the main unit goes down, all 12 users are SOL, but with my RAIPC (Redundant Array of Inexpensive PCs) you can keep working until all 12 systems go down!

Only one problem

[Pojut]

Once you go past a three screen Eyefinity setup, Bezels become a real serious problem. With three displays it's no big deal, since the center monitor serves as your primary view while the other two monitors expand your peripheral vision...but with 6 monitors, you will have bezels crossing the center of your point of view, making things real wonky.

Yes, it's awesome having the size, but until someone releases a bezel-less six monitor system, it's kind of a waste of time. Besides, with how much a six monitor setup would cost, you may as well buy a good quality projector.

Re:Only one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Or...six good quality projectors. No more bezel issue, and six times the resolution!

Re:Only one problem

[Monkeedude1212]

Good God I'd hate to be the one who has to set THAT up.

We can barely get our projectors to stay level, let alone line it up other screens.

Re:Only one problem

[alta]

sounds like you're just thinking about gaming. Sure, that would suck for gaming, but I'm running a very productive 4 monitor set up now. In order from left to right, 22"@1920*1080, 22"@1920*1080, 26"@1920*1200, 22"@1600*1200.

The 26" HDTV sits directly in front because it's got the most to look at. Code goes here. To the right, toolbars, pallets, menus, etc. To the left go the results of what I'm programming (PHP/PERL/HTML/CSS) to the left of that lies the mail, instant messengers and other distractions.

Re:Only one problem

[Khyber]

"And every 500 hours (aka 20.8 days at 24x7) all the projectors will time out and refuse to display anything but "time to change the bulb!""

Bypass the UHP ballast and toss a 100w LED in there. No more bulb display notice, at least 15,000 hours lamp life.

Re:Only one problem

[vlm]

One of the projector models at one of the NOCs had a plan to prevent that:

1) Integrated optics. The first lens was mounted in the lamp "module" and the module was sealed. you'd have to find a way to bust open the module without cracking the lens or screwing up its alignment.

2) ID chip, much like an ink jet cartridge. "Hmmmm. lamp serial number 98243804728531 has been operated for 1000 hours or whatever". Yes, on the control menu, where you'd do things like brightness/contrast, there was an option to display the serial number and hours used on the screen.

So there's some serious problems in the way, both optically and electronically.

Supposedly this was a "feature" as a detonating halogen bulb could destroy the optics. So, stop them from using one past its prime, and if it blows up and takes out the first lens, thats OK since every bulb module comes complete with a new lens. Also you can't touch the glass bulb if its inside a sealed module. As a side note it also made the projector very profitable for the manufacturer.

And there is a problem in that I've never seen a single point source white LED much above 6 watts or so. You can buy multiple LED modules that insert into a standard edison lightbulb socket, but thats not going to work. If you can buy a 100 watt single chip LED I'd be impressed to see it.

Re:Only one problem

[Khyber]

I can get single-chip multi-emitter Quantum Well LEDs all day long at 100w, all single-package.

I mean, look at my signature. I do *WAY* more than just that with LED, that just happens to be what I chose to do professionally.

http://www.ledssuperbright.com/100w-white-high-power-led-p-226

There you go. I'm actually waiting for the manufacturer to be able to do the entire package in a customized color blend so I can provide a fully-functional horticultural light in a single ultra-small package.

Re:Sounds good.

[UnknowingFool]

Realistically how many different displays can the average consumer use at a time? Gamers might want 3 or 4 and then they are landscaping them so that they can see left, center, and right. Given that and the cost (both monetary and performance) of adding more displays to a card, means that I think 2 is about right. For specialized applications like store displays, etc, more displays is better but it is not a high volume market.

Re:You can always install HOW many?

[DeadDecoy]

The summary is poorly worded. ATI's Powercolor HD5970 video card supports 12 display outputs. If you have two, you go up to 24 display outputs. At that point, you could monitor the whole of the matrix.

Wish I Could Afford That Many Monitors

[ATestR]

This is a cool card, but how many of us would ever buy one? Even if the cost of this unit is equivalent to another high end video card, putting a dozen or so on my desk is more cash that I budget in a year for toys.

Admittedly, I find the idea of having many monitors attractive. I use a dual monitor setup at work, and I find it restrictive to go back to one monitor on my home laptop. What I'd like to have is a 2(h) x 3(w) array of monitors... someday.

Re:Wish I Could Afford That Many Monitors

[Monkeedude1212]

I'd like to have a full 1080p with 4:3 aspect ratio, with each pixel having its own dedicated 32" LCD monitor. They'd be all on the ground and I'd have to use it from my glass helicopter up above, but I'd essentially have the biggest screen there is, at approximately 34560 inches. ... Someday...

Matrox?

[strayant]

Hasn't Matrox been producing multi-output cards for years? How is this any different? http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/

Re:Matrox?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In terms of number of outputs, Matrox has indeed been doing it for years. The difference is that their gear tends to be fairly expensive(particularly when you consider its brutally tepid performance) niche stuff. According to their price sheet, their 8-head will run you $2K. Their cheapest quad-head is $330. And these are for display controllers that are basically suited for 2D applications.

By contrast, the ATI stuff, with vastly superior GPU peformance, and typically more RAM, is cheaper. 5-heads will run you $220. 6 will run about $500; because you can't seem to get 6 without a 5870, which isn't a cheap chip.

This 12-head monster, since it is probably a relatively short-run enthusiast catcher, may well land in the ~$1000-~$1500 zone; but that will still make it cheaper, faster, and with more heads and RAM than the Matrox equivalent.

Re:Sounds good.

[Cylix]

I haven't really checked modern chipsets, but some older nvidia models definitely had a performance drop.

My preferred setup is one larger horizontal display for environments which require directx/opengl. That is paired with a second vertical display which usually has non-interactive statistic and monitoring applications running.

There was a significant drop in performance regarding the accelerated output and unless there is a specific chip driving each display I suspect this will always be true. However, given the advancement of video controllers today it will likely be less of an impact as performance increases. Specifically, I don't recall noticing an impact on my now defunct GT 290. However, being defunct and sitting on my coffee table I can no longer confirm.

Can you imagine

[thijsh]

a Beowulf cluster of those?

But seriously wouldn't it be possible to hack a displayport as high-speed interconnect and use this for computation?

Re:Sounds good.

[rcpitt]

I currently run 4 monitors - used to run 6 but that was before I got the 1920x1280 units I currently have.

IMHO - you will never come close to having a paperless office until the screen real estate comes at least close to (or over) the desk real estate.

I write articles and code - and find that having the reference stuff up at the same time on another screen, with graphics on another, makes writing a LOT faster!!!

Users per computer

[tepples]

Realistically how many different displays can the average consumer use at a time?

Consumer, singular, or consumers, plural? If mainstream operating systems didn't have a problem recognizing multiple keyboards and mice and separating their input, then one could share a desktop computer among multiple users that way. Then a personal computer could become a family computer,* and school computer labs could get away with using less hardware.

* Even if you aren't running an NES emulator.

Slashdotted

[RobinEggs]

Apparently it's so overwhelming in its power and beauty my current graphics card can't bear to render it! It just gets halfway through, and then after the third set of HDMI ports comes into view it chokes up and halts, too depressed and intimidated to go further.

Seriously, though, either my connection sucks or the pictures are all slashdotted.

Re:The summary . . .

[mujadaddy]

Indeed. The summary and title were so at odds... I had to RTFA!

...I'll be in the corner of shame.

Re:Sounds good.

[Kjella]

As a person more or less forced to use two at work, I hate it with a vengeance because it's all one big virtual desktop because of citrix and every application feels like popping up dialogs across the middle. Three would be infinitely much better than two, at least there no "#%5%%%#"# bar dead center. I know you can do that with a regular Radeon 5xxx if you have DP displays or an active converter, but I'd love to see it become standard like double DVI ports have been for a while.

Great Idea

[Reason58]

I just had a great idea, you guys. "Virtual Monitors".

Ok, ok, hear me out.

Through software your computer will generate virtual monitors which can be used to contain an application in a little box on your screen. You can then have several applications open at the same time on the same screen simply by arranging those boxes so that you can see them all. This is especially easy since monitors are larger than ever now.

I am going to be seriously rich. Maybe I will buy some new windows.

Re:Sounds good.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Not really arbitrary: Historically, with analog outputs, you needed one RAMDAC, plus associated passives and connector, per video output. For cost reasons, one or two RAMDACs got folded pretty quickly into common display controller chipsets, just to save on the number of packages on the card. This area was where the massive economies of scale lived. If you didn't mind paying more, people like Matrox have always been willing to sell you cards with more heads.

With the newer digital interconnects, you need a TMDS out, plus associated passives and connector, per video output. Again, deviating from the mass-market-friendly 1 or 2 outs configuration has always been possible; but pricey.

The only really novel aspect of this ATI "Eyefinity" stuff is that ATI decided to crank up the number of outputs supported, by default, right in their silicon, so sharply and thus brought lots and lots of heads into the realm of "commodity gamer cards" rather than "underperforming, yet strikingly expensive, niche cards".

reminds me of the guy with 36 WoW accounts

[circletimessquare]

http://www.playkon.com/news-2601-How-To-Solo-Sunwell-With-36-WoW-Accounts.html

so that will be three cards please

24 girls, 12 cups?

[DeskLazer]

thanks but no thanks!

One Dozen picture frames?

[vlm]

Would this card drive one dozen monitors set up as digital picture frames?

I have a linux based file server in the basement that does not really do anything with its video output.

If I could hook up 12 picture frame monitors in various rooms of my house, that would be fun.

I don't want the extreme headache of manually updating 12 SDHC or CF cards. I don't want 12 individual stupid yearly subscriptions to some internet ripoff company that'll probably go out of business and make my investment obsolete the week after I buy them.

I just want to drop .jpgs into certain folders on my pre-existing file server and have the pictures randomly displayed thru the house, shuffling perhaps every 10 minutes. Also I'll have certain webcams periodically downloaded and added to the mix. And a cron job to display certain pictures at certain times, etc. A couple lines of perl, bash, and wget, thats what I'm talking about.

Re:One Dozen picture frames?

[Zerth]

How about 12 USB mini-monitors, with USB->network adapters.

A fair bit cheaper, unless you want 15"+ frames.

i have two of these 26" suckers:

[circletimessquare]

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?item=N82E16824255011

each is 1920x1200

i put one in landscape mode, then i bought an articulating monitor arm, and i put the other one in portrait mode. the setup looks schizophrenic, but listen up folks:

browsing the internet on a 16:9 monitor in portrait mode is a dream

try it some day. you capture so much of a webpage you are usually peering at through a slit you are constantly scrolling through with lots of unused screen real estate on either side

as a web developer, it helps too, believe me: the landscape mode screen for code/ packet inspection/ debugging/ email, etc... the other screen for a really good 10,000 foot overview of what you are actually putting up in the browser in terms of page layout

trust me folks: get a 16:9 monitor and put it in portrait mode if you browse a lot on the internet. it is about as good as it gets in terms of ui experience

Re:Sounds good.

[tinkerghost]

I write articles and code - and find that having the reference stuff up at the same time on another screen, with graphics on another, makes writing a LOT faster!!!

My preference is 3 monitors:

• Coding - the IDE or Nedit windows.
• Reference - Usually both language reference windows for rarely used commands and the project reference on the same window.
• Testing - Web browser or testing script windows depending on the project.

With that setup, I don't have to flip between desktops to work & doing reference checks is as simple as looking between the monitors. No flipping back & forth between the project reference & the test results you just compare the 2 windows & be done with it.

That said, I can't even think of what I would do with 12 monitors other than running a kiosk with each K/V/M setup dedicated to it's own OS image.

Re:Sounds good.

[bami]

Get your boss to get some licenses to this:
http://www.realtimesoft.com/ultramon/

I was an internet at some random software company for 6 months, and it helps when maximizing windows, stupid pop-up boxes appearing everywhere and just helps with sorting windows, even on uneven monitors. I run it myself on a 1680x1050 monitor next to a 1280x1024 monitor, and it really helps with stupid dialog boxes.

yours may be bigger than mine

[circletimessquare]

but mine is vertical and erect while yours is horizontal and flaccid

so my equipment is superior, at least that's what your mom and your girlfriend always tell me

Re:Porn...

[silverglade00]

"Whoa! It's like I'm actually inside..."

Re:Sounds good.

[Arthur Grumbine]

I was an internet at some random software company for 6 months...

How did you get that job?!

Re:NComputing no less expensive than nettop

[Changa_MC]

You ran explicitly unsupported software then.

And a nettop runs windows, which makes it another point of failure. The L series primarily saves on support, since all software deployment is on the server, and all hardware is on-the-fly swappable. 2 redundant servers replacing 20 workstations means zero downtime for about the same cost.

I said elsewhere we use x550s, that's where you save money.

Beware of cooling side effects

[MaunaLoa]

Be sure to factor in the thrust generated by the extremely powerful cooling fan - you wouldn't want your box taking off...

I think I speak for all of us when I say...

[frank_adrian314159]

To hell with the stupid looking card, where the hell are the pix of the "pretty lady Tia" mentioned in the article? I call shenanigans...